United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MOTION FOR
INTERVENTION [ECF NO. 109]
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Victor Tagle's Motion for
Court's Intervention. (ECF No. 109). For the reasons
discussed below, Plaintiff's motion is denied. In
addition, the Court recommends that Plaintiff be deemed a
May 2, 2019, Plaintiff has filed 60 cases in this District
beginning in 2013. 54 of the cases have been closed, though
some appeals are still pending. The Court did not review the
substance of each of these cases. The Court was able to
confirm that three of his cases were dismissed for
maliciousness or failure to state a claim.
(2:15-cv-02083-RCJ-GWF, ECF No. 8; 2:15-cv-02358-MMD-PAL, ECF
No. 3; 2:16-cv-00852-JAD-VCF, ECF No. 7). Subsequently, 13 of
Plaintiff's cases, half of the cases Plaintiff has filed
since the beginning of 2017, have been dismissed solely for
failure to pay a filing fee as required under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). (2:17-cv-02846-JAD-NJK, ECF No. 5;
2:18-cv-00544-JAD-NJK, ECF No. 23; 2:18-cv-00778-JAD-PAL, ECF
No. 5; 2:18-cv-00814-RFB-GWF, ECF No. 7;
2:18-cv-00871-FRB-GWF, ECF No. 5; 2:18-cv-00872-JAD-PAL, ECF
No. 5; 2:18-cv-01031-GMN-VCF, ECF No. 7; 2:18-
cv-02049-GMN-CWH, ECF No. 12; 3:17-cv-00257-RCJ-VPC, ECF No.
26; 3:17-cv-00372-RCJ-WGC, ECF No. 6; 3:17-cv-00497-RCJ-VPC,
ECF No. 5; 3:17-cv-00510-MMD-WGC, ECF No. 12;
3:18-cv-00519-MMD-CBC, ECF No. 5).
Plaintiff's cases remain open. (2:15-cv-02082-JCM-VCF,
2:18-cv-00815-GMN-CWH). Of these cases, three deal with the
handling of Plaintiff's citizenship applications.
(2:15-cv-02506, ECF No. 35; 2:18-cv-00694, ECF No. 1-1;
2:18-cv-00815, ECF No. 1-1).
instant case, 2:15-cv-02506, Plaintiff has filed a motion for
the Court's intervention. (ECF No. 109). This is
Plaintiff's sixth such motion in this case. (ECF Nos. 70,
91, 93, 100, 102). The previous five motions were denied.
(ECF Nos. 86, 108). The Court was able to locate two motions
for intervention from his other open cases which have been
denied. (2:15-cv-02082, ECF No. 43 at 2; 2:16-cv-00757, ECF
No. 130 at 1-2). Plaintiff has been warned about requesting
relief that has already been denied, making frivolous
requests, and filing documents that waste the resources of
the Court. (2:15-cv-02082, ECF No. 70 at 2;
2:15-cv-02506-APG-VCF, ECF No. 108 at 1-2; 2:16-cv-00757, ECF
No. 130 at 1-2).
initial matter, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for
intervention. This latest motion for intervention merely
re-states allegations raised in other cases.
(Compare 2:15-cv-02506-APG-VCF, ECF No. 109
with 2:18-cv-00694, ECF No. 1-1; 2:18-cv-00815, ECF
No. 1-1). The motion asks for an entry of default, even
though five motions for default are already pending in this
case. (2:15-cv-02506-APG-VCF, ECF Nos. 95, 97, 101, 103, 105,
109). There is no basis for the Court's intervention.
Plaintiff's request for default will be addressed based
on his pending motions for default.
latest motion for intervention continues Plaintiff's
pattern of abusing the judicial process. Therefore, the Court
recommends deeming Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and
limiting his future conduct in any cases he seeks to file in
the future and in this case.
district court has the “inherent power to enter
pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants.”
Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047,
1057 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 165l(a)).
Because a pre-filing order implicates a litigant's right
of access to the courts, the court should enter such an
extreme remedy “only after a cautious review of the
pertinent circumstances.” Id. Prior to
entering a pre-filing order, the court must give the litigant
notice and an opportunity to be heard. Id. (citing
De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir.
court must set forth an adequate record for review and make
“substantive findings about the frivolous or harassing
nature of the plaintiff's litigation.” Id.
“An adequate record for review should include a listing
of all the cases and motions that led the district court to
conclude that a vexatious litigant order was
needed.'” Id. at 1059 (quoting De
Long, 912 F.2d at 1147). To determine whether the
litigant's conduct is frivolous or harassing, the court
evaluates “both the number and content of the filings
as indicia of the frivolousness of the litigant's
claims.” Id. (quotation omitted).
a pre-filing order “must be narrowly tailored to
closely fit the specific vice encountered.”
Id. (quotation omitted). A pre-filing order is
overbroad if it prevents the litigant from filing any suit in
the court, or applies to a suit against anyone when the
record showed the plaintiff was litigious with respect to
only one group of defendants. Id. at 1061. Whether
to enter a pre-filing order against a vexatious litigant lies
within the court's discretion. Id. at 1056.
detailed above, half of all Plaintiff's cases filed since
the beginning of 2017 have been dismissed solely for failure
to pay a filing fee as required under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Plaintiff continues to litigate this issue with the
Court, even after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has
stated on numerous occasions that the denials of
Plaintiff's in forma pauperis applications was
proper. (Compare 2:18-cv-00544, ECF No. 31 (Order by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stating that the District
Court properly denied the in forma pauperis
application, filed on December 18, 2018) with
2:18-cv-02049, ECF No. 14 (motion arguing the Court is biased
against Plaintiff, filed on February 11, 2019).
has a long history of re-litigating issues with the Court,
such as filing six different motions for intervention in one
case. (2:15-cv-02506 ECF Nos. 70, 91, 93, 100, 102, 109).
Plaintiff also has a history of filing almost identical
motions (ECF Nos. 95, 97, 101, 103, 105) and cases
(2:18-cv-00694, ECF No. 1-1; ...